Likewise, several of your "Uncle Sam handouts" deal with the elderly who have already contributed such as SS. Are you going to forfeit your SS when the time arises?

I'm not sure I will have the option, because the benefits may not fully exist in the same state they do know.
Certainly kids graduating high school today will almost certainly not have that option unless something changes.

As I've said before, the demographics are conspiring against us. That's not a left vs right thing, that's a basic math thing.

Back in the mid-60's there were 3 or 4 working people contributing to the pool of money that each retired taxpayer drew from, in terms of medicare and SS. Then, a retired person only consumed from that pool for an average of 10 years or less.

Today, that ratio has dropped in half in terms of contributors vs retired, but the average length of time a person consumes a benefit has increased by almost 10 years. These numbers are continuing in that direction. That will not sustain itself long term.

You can have 4 people supporting 1 guy for 10 years, you cannot have 2 (or less) people supporting one guy for 20 years, unless the level of support he gets is diminished, or you tax the living daylights out of those 2 working stiffs.

That is why the democratic party attitude scares the shit out of me, not because I am cruel and want grampa to suffer, but because I cant see a way the numbers can work out in the end without scaling back stuff like that drastically.

If you can offer any mathematically sound explanation for how this is not a big problem, I would love to entertain that, it would certainly help me sleep at night.

Not sure what the point is with this distinction here. My premise is that more people than ever before have been struggling financially, and those people who become dependant on entitlements are more likely to vote for Obama. The cycle feeds off itself. Hence the strong polling numbers for Barry, despite his track record so far.

That's quite a correlation you came up with on the cuff regarding who votes for Obama. LOL. I'm sorry, but you're misleading the reader to believe being poor in America is somehow a benefit desired by many. IT'S NOT! How fast does voting for Obama trickle down these entitlements? For these entitlements, if you want to call them that, have existed for decades. Also, what is your reference point to proclaim, "More people than ever before have been struggling financially..."? Like, in HISTORY??? To even validate that statement, one would have to take into account the many....I mean many variables that have created this situation. Your simplification is dishonest. The strong polling numbers also come from employed individuals who know the disaster waiting to happen, Romney, is an out-of-touch silver-spooner who's bored with his stacks of money and want to achieve the presidency to say he did it. He will not win. Never! And that idiot is digging himself a hole and Obama's not even in 100% of his campaign. LOL

Quote:

Obviously children cant vote, but their single moms can, and last I checked, their 1 vote counts just as much as Harold the laid-off engineer, even if Harold was making more per year than she did in 5 years. Thus, the single mom will influence the results of popularity polls today, and even more importantly, when in the actual voting booth in November. For every wealthy person (or middle class who ASPIRES to be wealthy) who might prefer Romney in a poll, there will be more new food stamp recipients than him who wont, and that ratio will get bigger and bigger with each passing quarter of financial misery.

Are you angry these "disgusting, lazy, poor" American's vote counts? You sound like it. Amazing how you reduce those against Romney as being card carrying Food stamp recipients. You're as bad has Romney's latest flub about the 47% of Americans. Now you wonder why he's toast?

Quote:

I still stand by my original assertion; the failure of Obamanomics to put folks back to work will ironically increase his chances to win as those folks dont want to cut off the only hand that remains feeding them.

Hilarity.....You just cried for several paragraphs about gov't entitlements and those who are dependent on them. YET...YET you blame the gubment for not finding the unemployed a livable wage? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Believe me, even as a Democrat I feel your pain. The frustration in your post is palpable. In an election year when Republicans should be walking away with the presidency it appears they are losing badly to someone they despise viscerally.

Even in an any "anybody but the other guy" election year (which it is for Republicans) you need to have an acceptable alternative to the general electorate. Sadly, the Repblicans don't. It must be unbelieveably demoralizing for the entire party.

I see it 180 degrees in the other direction. If the President, with the help of a complicit media, academia, Hollywood, vocal union and protest minority, 95% black vote, and 47% of the electorate already in the tank..

How is he not walking away by 20 points?

Just like the shock and awe of the 2010 elections the was a conservative landslide against everything Obama.. I'm not frustrated at all since the fundamentals of that election haven't changed except for now we have a standard bearer.

I'm not sure I will have the option, because the benefits may not fully exist in the same state they do know.
Certainly kids graduating high school today will almost certainly not have that option unless something changes.

But, you want to do away with gov't dependents so that doesn't matter. LOL

Quote:

As I've said before, the demographics are conspiring against us. That's not a left vs right thing, that's a basic math thing.

Back in the mid-60's there were 3 or 4 working people contributing to the pool of money that each retired taxpayer drew from, in terms of medicare and SS. Then, a retired person only consumed from that pool for an average of 10 years or less.

Today, that ratio has dropped in half in terms of contributors vs retired, but the average length of time a person consumes a benefit has increased by almost 10 years. These numbers are continuing in that direction. That will not sustain itself long term.

You can have 4 people supporting 1 guy for 10 years, you cannot have 2 (or less) people supporting one guy for 20 years, unless the level of support he gets is diminished, or you tax the living daylights out of those 2 working stiffs.

Perhaps you may want to address that damn life expectancy for increasing, ya know.... (Common sense 101)

Also, what about the restructuring of 401K and retirement packages where people are putting in years and their place of employment are giving them a see ya later cake and a pat on the back? You wonder why so many depend on SS?

Quote:

That is why the democratic party attitude scares the shit out of me, not because I am cruel and want grampa to suffer, but because I cant see a way the numbers can work out in the end without scaling back stuff like that drastically.

Your statement shows how you're aligned to party talking points because SS is not party specific. All have access to it. Even McCain collects social security!!!!

Quote:

If you can offer any mathematically sound explanation for how this is not a big problem, I would love to entertain that, it would certainly help me sleep at night.

It's a problem, definitely. But only if one is using SS as a back up plan to sustain themselves in their later years. I'm not.

Why are you using such inflammatory terms? I would invite you to scour my previous posts in this thread and point out where I have used the subjective terms such as "disgusting" or "lazy" to describe the objective state of being poor. That is an association that you are making, not me.

I'd also invite you to demonstrate where I made the argument that being poor is a state desired my many, that people would aspire to.
Having had my own father pass away just before my 3rd birthday, I have years of experience with that first hand. Rather than feeling sorry for myself and letting the gov subsidize me, I went out, busted my ass, skipped a lot of social events in high school to study so I could earn scholarships as that was my only option to get the kind of education that leads to decent job.

I dont think it's up to the government to find people a job, that's something best done by the private sector. Its up to the gov to create an environment where private sector employers can thrive so they can build their business and create new jobs. You create a hostile climate, guess what, the job creators will take full advantage of globalization.

If you need to twist things around so much to try and make your point, I have to wonder just how sound that point is to begin with.

I see it 180 degrees in the other direction. If the President, with the help of a complicit media, academia, Hollywood, vocal union and protest minority, 95% black vote, and 47% of the electorate already in the tank..

How is he not walking away by 20 points?

Just like the shock and awe of the 2010 elections the was a conservative landslide against everything Obama.. I'm not frustrated at all since the fundamentals of that election haven't changed except for now we have a standard bearer.

Coupla things:

Actually the fundamentals have changed, but you haven't realized it yet. Obama is opening up a significant lead nationally in the polls and particularly in the all important swing states. Like many Republicans in the bubble you seem to forget that more than half the country actually likes the President

Then there's the fact that Republicans don't really believe in their candidate. They don't like him, they don't trust him and he doesn't inspire them. Deep down they wish they had someone else running. Republicans will be voting against the other guy, not for their candidate. Watch how fast other Republicans throw this guy under the bus at the first sign of touble in the campaign.

But, you want to do away with gov't dependents so that doesn't matter. LOL

Never said I want to do away with them. I just want them to be changed to reflect the demographic reality

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Perhaps you may want to address that damn life expectancy for increasing, ya know.... (Common sense 101)

Seriously? You think I have no idea why the ratio is changing? I never said that a longer life expectancy is bad. Common sense dictates that you cannot pretend that people are not living longer, and expect that well to not run dry.

I know why people depend on SS more than ever, that doesn't change the basic math problem. If they can't feed themselves, and Uncle Sam has to, then the funding has to increase somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Your statement shows how you're aligned to party talking points because SS is not party specific. All have access to it. Even McCain collects social security!!!!

What??? what does this have to do with party talking points? I didnt say that it's OK that McCain collects it, or that it's only bad if Democrats collect it. I'm saying we have a problem going forward if everyone continues to collect it without more funding. Of course, you tax folks more, and they will take advantage of globalization and ship even more stuff overseas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

It's a problem, definitely. But only if one is using SS as a back up plan to sustain themselves in their later years. I'm not.

So you are not only relying on SS, so if others who are not financially able to have another plan get screwed because the SS well is run dry, well that's their problem? That doesnt sound very left to me.

What I'm saying is, warn folks now the tap will gradually be turned off so they have time to start building a separate fund instead of expecting Uncle Sam to be there. Isnt that better than saying nothing, then when the time comes, you tell them "sorry, you should have had a backup plan ? I have one"

According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans in the second quarter of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a government benefit. (The total population at the time was 305 million).

Thatís up from 30% in the 1980s and 44.4% in the third quarter of 2008, a recent growth in part attributable to the bad economy of President Obamaís first term.

What are these handouts, as determined by the census bureau?

-Medicaid
-Social Security
-food stamps
-Medicare
-assistance with their rent
-unemployment benefits
-Elderly tax benefits (the extra standard deduction for the elderly, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for the elderly)
-child and dependent care tax credit
-Earned Income Tax Credit
-Exclusion of other cash transfers (such as welfare and disability payments)
-Tax-exempt interest and some other deductions, such as for retirement savings
-Itemized deductions
-Education credits

Which means that someone you know and love probably receives a "government handout". In fact that someone might even be you.

So if your mom or dad is on social security or disability or if you have a relative who has a disability or debilitating medical condition or devastating illness for which they receive assistance, or if you know some good people who work full time but don't make enough to be able to afford child care or perhaps they might need help with paying for their kids education, or if you know someone who is the spouse of a fallen veteran then hate to tell you but Mitt Romney thinks they are all welfare queens who are victims and feel entitled and he says F*CK em.

Yet he's ready to give a big fat wet kiss in the form of huge tax cuts and favors to all his super rich doners... as well as himself.

The thing you fail to realize is that half (or more) of these people using these programs are Republican voters.

Its not like I care. I don't criticize people for using SS or food stamps or unemployment benefits when they fall into hard times. The biggest fallacy the hateful Republicans (not all Republicans, just the hateful ones) ever pushed was that people using these programs don't want to work. But we know thats not true. When there are an abundance of jobs, the amount of people on these programs go down considerably.

I see it 180 degrees in the other direction. If the President, with the help of a complicit media, academia, Hollywood, vocal union and protest minority, 95% black vote, and 47% of the electorate already in the tank..

How is he not walking away by 20 points?

Just like the shock and awe of the 2010 elections the was a conservative landslide against everything Obama.. I'm not frustrated at all since the fundamentals of that election haven't changed except for now we have a standard bearer.

The 2010 elections were really a referendum on the economy that was just beginning to bottom out. The Democrats got most of the brunt of the fallout, but obviously the economy is a beast that takes a long time to turn around but they were the party in power.

This election is not close and was never really that close. Obama has had a large electoral lead for several months over Romney. The electoral count is gonna be a landslide victory for Obama.

As to why he isn't winning by 20 points: Politics is too partisan for a candidate to lose by that amount.

The 2010 elections were really a referendum on the economy that was just beginning to bottom out. The Democrats got most of the brunt of the fallout, but obviously the economy is a beast that takes a long time to turn around but they were the party in power.

This election is not close and was never really that close. Obama has had a large electoral lead for several months over Romney. The electoral count is gonna be a landslide victory for Obama.

As to why he isn't winning by 20 points: Politics is too partisan for a candidate to lose by that amount.

Gallup polls are out today and after the supposed slaughter of the Dem convention, they are tied at 46% a piece (with yet still an oversampling of Dems).

Romney is on offense on more states Obama won in 2008 (which is the same model Obama used to defeat McCain) so the electoral map is a wash since the toss ups will determine the election, not the coastal states.

And the environment is not conducive to the President, at all. I don't see unemployment improving in 6 weeks. I can see another embassy ransacked potentially. I can see Israel attacking Iran potentially. I can see America getting demeaned repeatedly at the UN assembly next week. I can see the Osama kill movie further enraging Muslims.

Sprinkle all that together and the outcome of the debates will settle the issue for the electorate imo - and in that, there is just no way to squirm out of the record of that past four years when being engaged mano-a-mano (not that the moderators wont try).

Gallup polls are out today and after the supposed slaughter of the Dem convention, they are tied at 46% a piece (with yet still an oversampling of Dems).

Romney is on offense on more states Obama won in 2008 (which is the same model Obama used to defeat McCain) so the electoral map is a wash since the toss ups will determine the election, not the coastal states.

And the environment is not conducive to the President, at all. I don't see unemployment improving in 6 weeks. I can see another embassy ransacked potentially. I can see Israel attacking Iran potentially. I can see America getting demeaned repeatedly at the UN assembly next week. I can see the Osama kill movie further enraging Muslims.

Sprinkle all that together and the outcome of the debates will settle the issue for the electorate imo - and in that, there is just no way to squirm out of the record of that past four years when being engaged mano-a-mano (not that the moderators wont try).

We all know that general matchup polls mean absolutely nothing to the election. It's all about the state by state polls. Penn is not even being contested by Romney. Michigan was never as close as a couple of polls suggested. Obamas lead in OH is coming back strong. Virginia's changing demographic means that it's harder for Romney to get. And the newer polls suggest that it's moving away from Romney. Florida is leaning slightly for Obama also. Basically, he's up in almost every swing state minus Missourri, NC and maybe Iowa (?). All he needs is Penn (which he has), Mich, and OH and it's over. And you could sub OH for Colorado and Iowa.

Keep in mind that I'm writing this from my phone and Im trying to feed dinner to my two little ones so I dont have time to run numbers at web sites, but I think you'll find them pretty accurate. Romneys road to 270 is very hard since he is behind in most of the swing states and Obama is already so close to 270.

The biggest fallacy the hateful Republicans (not all Republicans, just the hateful ones) ever pushed was that people using these programs don't want to work. But we know thats not true. When there are an abundance of jobs, the amount of people on these programs go down considerably.

Yes, but the number does not drop down to zero. Fact is, there are some people who do abuse the system of entitlements. Not 100% of everyone who is currently unemployed is doing absolutely everything possible to find a new job. Some, not all, but some of the people using these programs really dont want to work.

I assume nobody is claiming the abuse rate is zero, because that would be monumentally naive. I have no sympathy for those people, and hopefully you dont either. If you really think that stating this unpleasant fact about human nature makes me hateful, then so be it.

Like it or not, there are some people who truly believe that it's the governments job to equalize the outcomes of individuals personal decisions. Those are the people who Romney was talking about. I dont agree they represent 47% of the population, but I dont think it is 0% either. Regardless of your political stripe, it is hard to dispute his assertion that there is probably nothing he can do or say to get them to vote for him anyways. That nugget is the kind of statement of absolute truth you dont often hear from politicians.

Either way, even if someone really WANTS to work, sometimes the horrific economic climate makes that next to impossible (CNN has an ongoing series about some motivated, long-term unemployed people who have literally sent out hundreds of job applications over the course of months or years and still cant find anything). Given that sad state of affairs, it can create an incentive for some these folks to vote for whoever will continue their entitlement program in the short term. Maybe a real good job is still a year or more away, especially if they are retraining themselves, and in the meantime they still have to eat. This voting incentive, in a perverse way, rewards rather than punishes the stewards of the failed economic programs that are keeping them in this jam in the first place.

Yes, but the number does not drop down to zero. Fact is, there are some people who do abuse the system of entitlements. Not 100% of everyone who is currently unemployed is doing absolutely everything possible to find a new job. Some, not all, but some of the people using these programs really dont want to work.

I assume nobody is claiming the abuse rate is zero, because that would be monumentally naive. I have no sympathy for those people, and hopefully you dont either. If you really think that stating this unpleasant fact about human nature makes me hateful, then so be it.

Like it or not, there are some people who truly believe that it's the governments job to equalize the outcomes of individuals personal decisions. Those are the people who Romney was talking about. I dont agree they represent 47% of the population, but I dont think it is 0% either. Regardless of your political stripe, it is hard to dispute his assertion that there is probably nothing he can do or say to get them to vote for him anyways. That nugget is the kind of statement of absolute truth you dont often hear from politicians.

Either way, even if someone really WANTS to work, sometimes the horrific economic climate makes that next to impossible (CNN has an ongoing series about some motivated, long-term unemployed people who have literally sent out hundreds of job applications over the course of months or years and still cant find anything). Given that sad state of affairs, it can create an incentive for some these folks to vote for whoever will continue their entitlement program in the short term. Maybe a real good job is still a year or more away, especially if they are retraining themselves, and in the meantime they still have to eat. This voting incentive, in a perverse way, rewards rather than punishes the stewards of the failed economic programs that are keeping them in this jam in the first place.

I agree with some of what you're saying. What I'm pointing out is that Romney doesn't have to do anything to get those people to vote for him. Most of those people ARE voting for him.

We all know that general matchup polls mean absolutely nothing to the election. It's all about the state by state polls. Penn is not even being contested by Romney. Michigan was never as close as a couple of polls suggested. Obamas lead in OH is coming back strong. Virginia's changing demographic means that it's harder for Romney to get. And the newer polls suggest that it's moving away from Romney. Florida is leaning slightly for Obama also. Basically, he's up in almost every swing state minus Missourri, NC and maybe Iowa (?). All he needs is Penn (which he has), Mich, and OH and it's over. And you could sub OH for Colorado and Iowa.

Keep in mind that I'm writing this from my phone and Im trying to feed dinner to my two little ones so I dont have time to run numbers at web sites, but I think you'll find them pretty accurate. Romneys road to 270 is very hard since he is behind in most of the swing states and Obama is already so close to 270.

Yup. Obama has several paths to 270. Rmoney, not so much. Obama may lose the popular vote, but he'll win re-election via the electoral vote.

I agree with some of what you're saying. What I'm pointing out is that Romney doesn't have to do anything to get those people to vote for him. Most of those people ARE voting for him.

Historically, yes, the poorer southern states have typically voted Republican in the past.

Anyways, this time, I'm not so sure. This article supports my hypothesis:

"one of the ironies of the 2012 presidential campaign is that the incumbent president has benefited from strong support among many of the constituencies that have been hardest-hit by high unemployment levels, particularly black Americans and Latino Americans. "

Historically, yes, the poorer southern states have typically voted Republican in the past.

Anyways, this time, I'm not so sure. This article supports my hypothesis:

"one of the ironies of the 2012 presidential campaign is that the incumbent president has benefited from strong support among many of the constituencies that have been hardest-hit by high unemployment levels, particularly black Americans and Latino Americans. "

But the number of people on Medicare and Social security FAR outweighs the amount of people on Medicaid (which many make an assumption that most of these people are democratic voters. I would assert that about 60-65% are). My guess that about 5% of those 47% are on Medicaid. Most of those 47% are on SS and medicare (old people). And those people are largely republican.

Why are you using such inflammatory terms? I would invite you to scour my previous posts in this thread and point out where I have used the subjective terms such as "disgusting" or "lazy" to describe the objective state of being poor. That is an association that you are making, not me.

I'd also invite you to demonstrate where I made the argument that being poor is a state desired my many, that people would aspire to.
Having had my own father pass away just before my 3rd birthday, I have years of experience with that first hand. Rather than feeling sorry for myself and letting the gov subsidize me, I went out, busted my ass, skipped a lot of social events in high school to study so I could earn scholarships as that was my only option to get the kind of education that leads to decent job.

I dont think it's up to the government to find people a job, that's something best done by the private sector. Its up to the gov to create an environment where private sector employers can thrive so they can build their business and create new jobs. You create a hostile climate, guess what, the job creators will take full advantage of globalization.

If you need to twist things around so much to try and make your point, I have to wonder just how sound that point is to begin with.

First off, you stupidly link those who depend on handouts (none of which you identified as being an actual handout btw) with being associated with Obama as if any American who receives any assistance is an Obama voter. And you refer to Obama as, "Barry", showing clearly your contempt for the president. At that point, how seriously should your opinion be taken?

I use those inflammatory terms tongue-in-cheek because you have implied quiet clearly that Obama voters are the less desired Americans who are needy of handouts by way of the gov't. You have dismissed the droves of Americans who too are hard-working, esteemed members of our society who also vote for him for other reasons. That shows you're bias playing off as if you actually have an objective view. You think those red states don't have undereducated, poor, gov't-dependent folks who vote for the other party? LOL

High-horse 101, I'm tired of it. Sometimes I think some of you enter these discussions so you can get a pat on the back for overcoming your perceived hardships like you deserve a medal. You think your story is novel to the point it outshines people who too have overcome hardships WITH some help? Please. Look, Many may argue getting good grades and receiving a scholarship is too a handout when you consider there really isn't an alternative to doing well in school or than doing poorly. That's your duty. Why should you receive a HANDOUT for it? Oh, wait....how ya like that?

If you think it's the gov't job to create an environment that encourages the private sector to create jobs, then you are essentially agreeing that the gov't plays SOME role in creating jobs which goes against every criticism you uttered thus far pertaining to how those dependent on the gov't are more burdern than help. Get your story straight and in order, please...

High-horse 101, I'm tired of it. Sometimes I think some of you enter these discussions so you can get a pat on the back for overcoming your perceived hardships like you deserve a medal. You think your story is novel to the point it outshines people who too have overcome hardships WITH some help? Please. Look, Many may argue getting good grades and receiving a scholarship is too a handout when you consider there really isn't an alternative to doing well in school or than doing poorly. That's your duty. Why should you receive a HANDOUT for it? Oh, wait....how ya like that?

Doing well in school is your duty? Hell, it's not even your duty to keep attending classes at all once you reach a certain age, much less perform well in those classes. Obviously it's to your own advantage to do well, but if there's anything I have seen over and over again in my life, it's people behaving in ways that are not in their own best interest, oddly enough.

FYI: a scholarship, by virtue of it's association to a certain standard of acheivement/performance required to EARN it, is not a handout. A grant or a bursary, on the other hand, is the academic equivalent of a handout. In my case, I didnt qualify for those as I was not a member of the right religious organizations, and my skin was the wrong color.

I'm guessing you probably had 2 working parents to help you with any kind of education funding, so you would be unaware of such a distinction.

Make no mistake, I'm not looking for a pat on the back. Knowing that I am doing better than many classmates who came from more advantaged households than I did is pat on the back enough for me.

I'm just saying if I dragged my ass out of the mud, and now you want to use my tax dollars to support those who dont want to make the effort to drag their own asses out of the mud, then sorry, I have limited patience or sympathy for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

If you think it's the gov't job to create an environment that encourages the private sector to create jobs, then you are essentially agreeing that the gov't plays SOME role in creating jobs which goes against every criticism you uttered thus far pertaining to how those dependent on the gov't are more burdern than help. Get your story straight and in order, please...

My story is straight. Please take the time to read it again, or get someone to read it to you. Slowly. People who depend on the government for direct funding are more burden than help. (ie: there is no middleman, they receive compensation financially or otherwise directly from Uncle Sam). People who get compensation from private industry are contributing to the economy, and paying taxes that makes the lives of the other folks even possible. If my job becomes or remains fiscally sustainable due to some corporate tax break, that does not mean I am being paid by the government. It means the government is acting in a smart way to keep me employed so my taxes can fund services that others consume more than I do.

If you are tired of reading other opinions, you are welcome to leave. Nobody is forcing you to read or post here. Somehow I suspect you are afflicted with whatever Scotch had, and you will probably be unable to restrain yourself from reading and posting.

FYI: a scholarship, by virtue of it's association to a certain standard of acheivement/performance required to EARN it, is not a handout. A grant or a bursary, on the other hand, is the academic equivalent of a handout. In my case, I didnt qualify for those as I was not a member of the right religious organizations, and my skin was the wrong color.

I like how you ignored my first two paragraphs....

If a scholarship is earned by meeting a standard, then certainly Social Security, Affirmative Action, and unemployment benefits are no different, although those benefits are associated with negative connotations. So, what point are you making? And some grants are extended to those who have parents killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, for example. Giving one's life for his/her country and receiving a benefit because of it is now considered a handout? Are you really that heartless?

If your skin was the wrong color, you're statistically less likely to even make it to a college campus much less out of your twenties, so cry me a river. Society is set up for you to achieve whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Quote:

I'm guessing you probably had 2 working parents to help you with any kind of education funding, so you would be unaware of such a distinction.

Your guess would be wrong. I paid my own way along with the MGIB, So I earned it and I earned it by giving back first.

Quote:

Make no mistake, I'm not looking for a pat on the back. Knowing that I am doing better than many classmates who came from more advantaged households than I did is pat on the back enough for me.

You sound bitter actually. If you find joy in what others haven't achieved, I see why you're aligned with the conservatives.

Quote:

I'm just saying if I dragged my ass out of the mud, and now you want to use my tax dollars to support those who dont want to make the effort to drag their own asses out of the mud, then sorry, I have limited patience or sympathy for that.

Who are you referring to? Taxes is a broad subject. Taxes also keep your bridges from falling into the water below. Should the engineers and construction workers force you to bang in a few rivets since their labor supports you and you didn't drag you're ass out of the proverbial mud to help them? Should the military charge you a premium for your safe boarders and freedoms since you haven't dragged your ass out of the proverbial mud and done what they have?

Quote:

My story is straight. Please take the time to read it again, or get someone to read it to you. Slowly. People who depend on the government for direct funding are more burden than help. (ie: there is no middleman, they receive compensation financially or otherwise directly from Uncle Sam). People who get compensation from private industry are contributing to the economy, and paying taxes that makes the lives of the other folks even possible. If my job becomes or remains fiscally sustainable due to some corporate tax break, that does not mean I am being paid by the government. It means the government is acting in a smart way to keep me employed so my taxes can fund services that others consume more than I do.

Perhaps you need to re-read your own words. You haven't identified a handout in the context that you've described it as. I already addressed the list of "handouts" that you mentioned and showed how people have contributed to many of them. SS is a reserve. UEb is a reserve. Ok, so, by your admission, an industry that wasn't sustainable like the automobile industry should have been left to rot, thereby leaving thousands without jobs? And what point would that have proven?

Quote:

If you are tired of reading other opinions, you are welcome to leave. Nobody is forcing you to read or post here. Somehow I suspect you are afflicted with whatever Scotch had, and you will probably be unable to restrain yourself from reading and posting.

Your opinion of past members or whomever damaged your internet ego prior to this thread is irrelevant to me and this discussion. This is not your frat house where you can intimidate members or join forces with others WHO DO agree with your crap... hoping majority rules. If you cannot handle an opposing view, YOU LEAVE and join nickelodeon.com.

Didnt ignore them, they were addressed in earlier posts, if you took the time to read. Must I not only provide the food, but cut it up and then spoon feed it to you? Fine... Post #40 in this thread contains a link to a CNN article which points out quite clearly that Obama supporters ARE clearly more likely to consume entitlements. Nationally, in the 18-29yr old bracket alone, 14% of Romney supporters are unemployed, while almost a third of Obama supporters are unemployed. States with the highest unemployment such as Calif are overwhelming Obama fans. If you are unemployed, you are probably consuming entitlements (unless you are living off a rich parent), and you are obviously more likely to fall into the 47% who pay no federal income taxes. Or, say you have a job, but its crappy and pays no benefits: Democrats rely heavily on the support of of voters who are the most likely to be uninsured for health care (blacks are 22% uninsured, latinos 32% uninsured, and these folks DONT support Romney. Whites are 14% uninsured.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

If a scholarship is earned by meeting a standard, then certainly Social Security, Affirmative Action, and unemployment benefits are no different, although those benefits are associated with negative connotations. So, what point are you making? And some grants are extended to those who have parents killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, for example. Giving one's life for his/her country and receiving a benefit because of it is now considered a handout? Are you really that heartless?

The point is that the actions taken to earn a scholarship are usually considered to be honorable, positive, desirable accomplishments (high grades for example). The attributes you must possess to collect Medicaid, for example, are not those of high achievement, but usually are signs of low achievement, at least fiscally speaking. Nobody says "hooray, now I'm finally making so little I qualify for more entitlements" Let me put it this way: in the animal kingdom, those people accepting the handout of Medicaid would be the squirrels who didnt sock away enough nuts to survive the winter. While Social Security may not be a handout because you have paid into it (so essentially you are just cashing out your investment), stuff like Medicaid and food stamps are handouts.

Obviously the grants to children of parents killed while defending their country are on the honorable, positive accomplishment side. To suggest I would feel otherwise without any evidence of that is really reaching and putting disingenuous words in my mouth, just as you have done with others. Not terribly impressive; hard for me to take pride in dismantling that sort of feckless argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

You sound bitter actually. If you find joy in what others haven't achieved, I see why you're aligned with the conservatives.

I take no joy from others failures. Because others havent achieved, my taxes must go to support them. If they had all achieved, that would be more desirable for me, as my taxes could be lowered with no loss of service. Joy is not watching others struggle, joy would be that everyone makes enough money that there is nobody who doesnt pay income taxes. If YOU are so concerned about others, then why did you say that you didnt care if the entitlement pots run out of money due to demographic changes, because you were not relying on them for support when you are old?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Should the engineers and construction workers force you to bang in a few rivets since their labor supports you and you didn't drag you're ass out of the proverbial mud to help them?

What? This makes no sense. I did drag my proverbial ass out of the mud to help them. Now I'm making enough money to be taxed, and that money pays their salaries. Same thing with the military.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Ok, so, by your admission, an industry that wasn't sustainable like the automobile industry should have been left to rot, thereby leaving thousands without jobs? And what point would that have proven?

Once again, as I've explained before, if we didnt bail out GM, those billions of dollars would have not vanished into thin air. We could have used it to support other employers, those who dont pay dropouts $30 an hour to drop a bolt in a hole. I would argue that those dollars spent elsewhere could have created more jobs than what we lost if GM sank. Hell, GM is losing almost 50 grand for each Volt sold. http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-is...lt-sold-2012-9 Are you happy with that investment of your money ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

If you cannot handle an opposing view, YOU LEAVE and join nickelodeon.com.

Who said I can't handle an opposing view? You are the one who said you were tired of others comments. I find this whole discussion quite amusing. I would love to say it's enlightening or educational, but really, it's more amusing...

Didnt ignore them, they were addressed in earlier posts, if you took the time to read. Must I not only provide the food, but cut it up and then spoon feed it to you? Fine... Post #40 in this thread contains a link to a CNN article which points out quite clearly that Obama supporters ARE clearly more likely to consume entitlements. Nationally, in the 18-29yr old bracket alone, 14% of Romney supporters are unemployed, while almost a third of Obama supporters are unemployed. States with the highest unemployment such as Calif are overwhelming Obama fans. If you are unemployed, you are probably consuming entitlements (unless you are living off a rich parent), and you are obviously more likely to fall into the 47% who pay no federal income taxes. Or, say you have a job, but its crappy and pays no benefits: Democrats rely heavily on the support of of voters who are the most likely to be uninsured for health care (blacks are 22% uninsured, latinos 32% uninsured, and these folks DONT support Romney. Whites are 14% uninsured.)

So, your strategy is to address me by replying to another member? Are you that intellectually lazy or just skillfully deceptive? Your links are buried randomly in your nonsense.

HOW COULD YOU OVERLOOK THIS ...

"Unfortunately, we don't have reliable or consistent data on the political preferences of the unemployed. The numbers we do have are fragmentary.
"

Even your own article has no answer for the 25% of undecided voters, genius...as it cannot be determined what they vote.

18-29 is hardly a fair index of Obama voters and you must be on crack cocaine if you're surprised that age bracket has relatively high unemployment or reliance on bennies. HAHAHAHAHA. Are you serious?

And that article must have been written by captain obvious since it implied red v. blue states just with an urban/minority twist to it. What is your point? And the 14% uninsured Rmoney relies on for votes DOES NOT take into account married couples, where one spouse is jobless and using the other person's benefits. But, you'd have to know the dynamics between minority v. white families and urban v suburban. Many minorities don't have credit cards to finance their period of underemployment. Most of their transactions are cash only. And if you're renting, getting evicted is a lot quicker than getting foreclosed which takes months, so, Captain Obvious, that 14% may be underrepresented since they may have other means to float their joblessness but that doesn't mean they are less dependent on benefits. It just implies they don't need them as quickly to maintain whatever they have.

Also..."This hardly settles the question, but the fact that the president fares so well with demographic groups that have experienced higher unemployment rates is nevertheless suggestive." That's right...suggestive.

The point is that the actions taken to earn a scholarship are usually considered to be honorable, positive, desirable accomplishments (high grades for example). The attributes you must possess to collect Medicaid, for example, are not those of high achievement, but usually are signs of low achievement, at least fiscally speaking. Nobody says "hooray, now I'm finally making so little I qualify for more entitlements" Let me put it this way: in the animal kingdom, those people accepting the handout of Medicaid would be the squirrels who didnt sock away enough nuts to survive the winter. While Social Security may not be a handout because you have paid into it (so essentially you are just cashing out your investment), stuff like Medicaid and food stamps are handouts.

This is not a question of what is or isn't honorable. This is a determination of what should be considered a handout or why one helping-hand is not as good as another type of helping-hand. A university's accreditation and ranking partially relies on the performance of its students, so paying the good ones is in the university's best interest first. Maintaining the health of a nation is in the gov't best interest, too since the strength of a nation begins with our well being. How about we address the low interest loans or option to defer payment students receive upon graduation? What about the huge debts these students graduates with? That seems like an equal burden on the system if you ask me. Maybe they are the 18-29 year olds on unemployment.

Quote:

Obviously the grants to children of parents killed while defending their country are on the honorable, positive accomplishment side. To suggest I would feel otherwise without any evidence of that is really reaching and putting disingenuous words in my mouth, just as you have done with others. Not terribly impressive; hard for me to take pride in dismantling that sort of feckless argument.

I can only reply to what you've written and you made it quite clear that grants are handouts without first educating yourself about the various grants available. Do you want me to cut up your food and spoon feed you, too?

Quote:

I take no joy from others failures. Because others havent achieved, my taxes must go to support them. If they had all achieved, that would be more desirable for me, as my taxes could be lowered with no loss of service. Joy is not watching others struggle, joy would be that everyone makes enough money that there is nobody who doesnt pay income taxes. If YOU are so concerned about others, then why did you say that you didnt care if the entitlement pots run out of money due to demographic changes, because you were not relying on them for support when you are old?

You can't even pinpoint how much of your salary goes to help these people, so what the hell are you babbling about? That just sounds like a romantic response about taxes that has become all too familiar. This is what was said;

Originally Posted by 48Laws View Post
It's a problem, definitely. But only if one is using SS as a back up plan to sustain themselves in their later years. I'm not.

Quote:

What? This makes no sense. I did drag my proverbial ass out of the mud to help them. Now I'm making enough money to be taxed, and that money pays their salaries. Same thing with the military.

My point is, we all benefit from our neighbors. You'd gladly pay your taxes if you knew what it took to police the world and our borders. Not saying you don't appreciate it, but everything affects everything.

Quote:

Once again, as I've explained before, if we didnt bail out GM, those billions of dollars would have not vanished into thin air. We could have used it to support other employers, those who dont pay dropouts $30 an hour to drop a bolt in a hole. I would argue that those dollars spent elsewhere could have created more jobs than what we lost if GM sank. Hell, GM is losing almost 50 grand for each Volt sold. http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-is...lt-sold-2012-9 Are you happy with that investment of your money ?

Wow. You're incredibly disgusting. You marginalize blue-collar workers because they chose a certain profession? Yeah, you have no class. $30/hour to bend, twist, lift and stand on your feet t for a number of hours while you help earn CEO millions a year??? . I'd say that's a fair wage.

Quote:

Who said I can't handle an opposing view? You are the one who said you were tired of others comments. I find this whole discussion quite amusing. I would love to say it's enlightening or educational, but really, it's more amusing...

You can't. Which is why a member who can't even defend himself still torments you. The only thing laughable is your allegiance to this elite group of Americans based on how much money you think you earn. That can all be taken away an instant. I can't tell you came from nothing.